Here's an update. Somebody pointed out to me that items #5 and 6 need correcting; for multiple shots digital doesn't have an advantage over film, but is equal in capability.
============================================================
I set out to make a list of what exactly you can do with film (negative and/or slide film) that absolutely cannot be done with a digital camera and a digital darkroom, assuming equipment/material cost and time are not limiting factors. I wanted to limit the discussion to pure technical issues and exclude any subjective factors. My thanks to all participants in this lively discussion. So here goes:

What can

Frans I believe both formats offer much for those who want to focus their efforts to produce the best image they can. I love film but where would we be without digital printers scanners and PS. I use both worlds to share and improve my images. Using a scanner alowed me to learn much from working my images with software and printing digital prints taught me a lot about tonal range and colour. I think much is just a preference to what you desire or need. Thanks for pointing out that even though each has their own characteristics and benifits, both offer creative expression.

Quote:
AJUK,

Cross Process: I'm not familiar with this term; please explain and why this is only possible with film.

Native B&W images: some digital cameras allow in-camera B&W setting, although that is a disadvantage, as you loose the ability to use the channel mixer and other tools to convert to B&W; so this is not a candidate for my list

Double exposure: some digital cameras allow for double exposure; multiple exposures are easy to do digitally in the edit program; not a candidate for my list.

Easier to do a lot of very long exposures: easier doesn't count for this debate, sorry.

Medium format: there are medium format backs up to 39 megapixels; cost doesn't count for this debate, sorry.

Superior quality of small film pocket cameras: I'm not sure how you can convince anybody that this is true, but please go ahead and try.

Print photos without a computer: you are kidding, aren't you?

Frans Waterlander

pixographer

Cross Proccessing is when film is developed in the wrong chemicals, this can be replicated in PS, but thats pretty pointless.

I know most digital cameras have a B&W setting, that doesn't make it native its just desaturating colour images.

When it comes to tiny pocket cameras, I didn't really think there was much on an argument that there is a bigger gap between film and digital compacts than there is between film and digital SLRs, it seems obvoiuse that film is going to have the advantage, Especially when it comes to dynamic range and Noise, the sensors are so small a 7x5" print is a 25x enlagement. I admit the advantage is often lost by use of, Crappy zoom lenses, Crappy film, Crappy proccessing ETC, none of which I use in my Olympus Stylus Epic.

No I am not kidding you, I am not saying its an advantage as in, what if you cant get to a computer, I mean an advantage as in you don't have to spend time infront of a computer, some would rather spend it in a DR.

Infact what sort of debate is it when ever somone gives you a reason its hard to argue with you say it doesn't count , because it really does, are you trying to start a flame war?

Frans,

I think if just a little real research were done you would find that the truth is the opposite with #2.

Quote:

Quote:
AJUK,

Cross Process: I'm not familiar with this term; please explain and why this is only possible with film.

Native B&W images: some digital cameras allow in-camera B&W setting, although that is a disadvantage, as you loose the ability to use the channel mixer and other tools to convert to B&W; so this is not a candidate for my list

Double exposure: some digital cameras allow for double exposure; multiple exposures are easy to do digitally in the edit program; not a candidate for my list.

Easier to do a lot of very long exposures: easier doesn't count for this debate, sorry.

Medium format: there are medium format backs up to 39 megapixels; cost doesn't count for this debate, sorry.

Superior quality of small film pocket cameras: I'm not sure how you can convince anybody that this is true, but please go ahead and try.

Print photos without a computer: you are kidding, aren't you?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Cross Proccessing is when film is developed in the wrong chemicals, this can be replicated in PS, but thats pretty pointless.

I know most digital cameras have a B&W setting, that doesn't make it native its just desaturating colour images.

When it comes to tiny pocket cameras, I didn't really think there was much on an argument that there is a bigger gap between film and digital compacts than there is between film and digital SLRs, it seems obvoiuse that film is going to have the advantage, Especially when it comes to dynamic range and Noise, the sensors are so small a 7x5" print is a 25x enlagement. I admit the advantage is often lost by use of, Crappy zoom lenses, Crappy film, Crappy proccessing ETC, none of which I use in my Olympus Stylus Epic.

No I am not kidding you, I am not saying its an advantage as in, what if you cant get to a computer, I mean an advantage as in you don't have to spend time infront of a computer, some would rather spend it in a DR.

Infact what sort of debate is it when ever somone gives you a reason its hard to argue with you say it doesn't count , because it really does, are you trying to start a flame war?

AJUK,

This discussion is about what can be done with film that cannot be done digitally, irrespective of preferences, cost, effort, time, etc.

Cross processing: if it can be replicated in PS, then it is not unique to film.

Native or non-native is an interim process step. The end result, a B&W image, can be made both with film or digital.

Compact film versus digital: it may be obvious to you, but I happen to think it is the other way around.

Print photos without a computer: first, Pictbridge and other programs allow you to print directly from a camera or memory card without the use of a computer; second, many people prefer the digital darkroom over the wet darkroom.

I've carefully considered your inputs and told you what my opinion on those is. You don't have to like my opinions, as I don't have to like yours. But we can at least be civil about it.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

David,

If you or anybody else has information to modify or remove item #2, film has a more complete selection of B/W papers, then that would be very welcome. I personally don't have the information to support this item or not.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

"I happen to think it is the other way around."

LOL, You know what they say about the bigger the lie, like I said with crappy lenses, films and proccessing probably.

Tell me what digital P&S camera has more dynamic range than a film P&S with coulor neg film, I think some very high end DSLR's come close (DSLR's I have more respect for). Yes a 7x5mm Crop from film won't be as good as the image from a digital camera, not by a long way, but film is nearly 5x bigger in every direction, infact 35mm film has 22x the image area over all, thats a bigger difference, than there is between 35mm and large format.

This was my result

AJUK,

My list already states that for single shot situations film has a better dynamic range, exposure latitude and shadow detail. I'm not interested in comparing small film cameras versus small digital cameras. I'm interested to discuss how the best film equipment/material compares to the best digital equipment/material, irrespective of cost, effort needed, time required, etc. to concentrate on the ultimate technical capabilities.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

Just to provide an indication at least I did a Google search on "inkjet paper" and got the following page, which is just one of at least ten pages of entries:

Inkjet Paper by Red River Paper
Offering various inkjet papers including glossy, matte and artistic papers for digital photo printing on inkjet printers.
www.redrivercatalog.com/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Paper2U.com - Photo paper, Inkjet paper, Laser paper and Printer ...
Supply a complete line of inkjet, laser, bond, and coated papers. On-line ordering.
www.paper2u.com/ - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

KODAK Inkjet Paper
With three types of KODAK Inkjet Photo Paper, it

David,

Thanks for the feedback. I had the idea that the situation was as you decribed, but hadn't tried to do what you did and look up all the different sources. I'll re-issue the list again with this item removed.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

As David Brooks pointed out there are way more choices for digital B&W paper then there ever were for B&W film, so I removed that item from the list. Here is the update.
============================================================
I set out to make a list of what exactly you can do with film (negative and/or slide film) that absolutely cannot be done with a digital camera and a digital darkroom, assuming equipment/material cost and time are not limiting factors. I wanted to limit the discussion to pure technical issues and exclude any subjective factors. My thanks to all participants in this lively discussion. So here goes:

What can

How can an Inkjet paper be B&W, surley its based on the ink used?

AJUK,

The point I am making is that if you want to print B&W there are significantly more choices for digital than there are for film.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Quote:
As David Brooks pointed out there are way more choices for digital B&W paper then there ever were for B&W film, so I removed that item from the list. Here is the update.

As David points out, there are many ink jet papers available for the person who choses to use ink jets for their prints, but that doesn't tell the whole story. These are all paper, relying on putting down ink to create the image - which is fine if your only interest is using a computer workstation to make prints from. However, there are other types of papers and processes available for the darkroom worker. Papers like Azo, Pt/Pd, Lith, etc.

Robert M. Teague

Film Photographer

Robert,

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean to say that there are more paper choices for film B&W printing than for digital B&W printing? Keep in mind that digital images can also be printed on papers traditionally used for film printing.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Quote:
Robert,

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean to say that there are more paper choices for film B&W printing than for digital B&W printing? Keep in mind that digital images can also be printed on papers traditionally used for film printing.

Frans Waterlander

pixographer

Not really, you can print B&W on any ink jet paper - you don't need one especially made for B&W, like you do in the traditional paper market.

I'm just pointing out that the number of ink jet papers really doesn't tell the whole story. A lot of B&W photographers, who use traditional materials, also use many other types of papers for their art.

Digital vs Traditional comparisons really fall apart in the long run, they are different mediums, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Sorry for not being more clear in my response,

Robert

Hi there, friends of imaging!
even though, it is interesting to read what one technique can do the other can't, this is a relatively fruitless discussion. It won't be long until digital can do everything what analogue can do.
More interesting would be where the strength of one technology lies vs. the other, and that in form of a comparison table. Then everyone could decide very easily what medium to use for specific applications. And there need not to be any jealousy!
Digital is here to stay. Even though, I personally prefer film, we should look at digital and tell the manufacturers of the various components what we like and what we dislike.
Here is my first question: what is the reason for a DSLR? Why have two viewing systems if you can watch the scene on a little screen? The viewfinder as we know it from SLR's and rangefinder cameras is really only a poor solution. In real life we watch things with two eyes, the old, one-eyed viewfinder is there because it was too cumbersome to build a viewfinder for two eyes!
I can imagine a screen that takes the entire backsurface of the camera, you can flip it in every direction you want and position the camera in any awkward angle without hurting your neck or back!
This is, I believe, a much more fruitful discussion. And intersting and creative!
Meanwhile, until a digital camera, which takes full advantage of this fantastic technolgy, is on the market, I will continue using my Leica M6, Rollei 35S and Leica R5, along with some Medium Format equipment.
Regards,
Siggy